New York's highest court ruled Thursday that gay marriage is not allowed under state law, rejecting arguments by same-sex couples who said the law violates their constitutional rights.

The Court of Appeals in a 4-2 decision said New York's marriage law is constitutional and clearly limits marriage to between a man and a woman. Any change in the law should come from the state Legislature, Judge Robert Smith wrote.

"We do not predict what people will think generations from now, but we believe the present generation should have a chance to decide the issue through its elected representatives," Smith wrote.

StcChief

07-06-2006, 11:44 AM

Good somebody not legislating from the bench

These gay's can go home and backdoor each other there.

Cochise

07-06-2006, 11:50 AM

blarahahahaidfjklslk ROFL ROFL

Greatest subject line EVAR!!!

oldandslow

07-06-2006, 12:04 PM

Fringe...

It should be democratically determined by the states. MA & VT, I believe, have already done so.

FringeNC

07-06-2006, 12:14 PM

Fringe...

It should be democratically determined by the states. MA & VT, I believe, have already done so.

I think you are wrong. I think the MA courts imposed gay marriage, and the electorate is pissed off, and a possible constitutional amendment is in the works. I think you are correct about VT.

Cochise

07-06-2006, 12:38 PM

It's really amazing how resoundingly the idea of gay marriage has been rejected... first by the electorate and now the judiciary (unexpectedly, for me anyways) agrees?

Amnorix

07-06-2006, 12:54 PM

It's really amazing how resoundingly the idea of gay marriage has been rejected... first by the electorate and now the judiciary (unexpectedly, for me anyways) agrees?

I'm surprised a bit by the electorate. Not by the judiciary.

What I'm really surprised about is that there is such resistance to the simple concept of "civil unions" between same sex couples. It's non-sensical to me. As long as being married gets you a package of rights under the law, then I don't see why a simple civil procedure shouldn't get any two people the same package of rights.

Cochise

07-06-2006, 12:57 PM

What I'm really surprised about is that there is such resistance to the simple concept of "civil unions" between same sex couples.

Has that been voted on anywhere?

I know that all the "prohibit gay marriage" proposals pass. But has there ever been a "create civil unions" vote?

BIG_DADDY

07-06-2006, 01:03 PM

The backdoor route. ROFL

FringeNC

07-06-2006, 01:17 PM

I'm surprised a bit by the electorate. Not by the judiciary.

What I'm really surprised about is that there is such resistance to the simple concept of "civil unions" between same sex couples. It's non-sensical to me. As long as being married gets you a package of rights under the law, then I don't see why a simple civil procedure shouldn't get any two people the same package of rights.

What are these bundle of rights you refer to? Is it impossible to write private contracts that perform the same function?

Baby Lee

07-06-2006, 02:03 PM

Local CBS radio just ran the tag - gay rights groups take it on the chin. . .

Ishityounot.

jspchief

07-06-2006, 02:09 PM

Has that been voted on anywhere?

I know that all the "prohibit gay marriage" proposals pass. But has there ever been a "create civil unions" vote?I suspect there would be some "seperate but equal" grumblings, but that may be the best approach at this point.

Bootlegged

07-06-2006, 02:24 PM

Limp wieners abound...

Cochise

07-06-2006, 02:37 PM

Local CBS radio just ran the tag - gay rights groups take it on the chin. . .

Ishityounot.

ROFL ROFL that's awesome!

Mr. Laz

07-06-2006, 03:14 PM

i think government should stay out of the fuggin marriage business all together.

all should be Unions and all should be allowed.

marriage is a religious thing and belongs in the church only.

Lurch

07-06-2006, 03:18 PM

i think government should stay out of the fuggin marriage business all together.

all should be Unions and all should be allowed.

marriage is a religious thing and belongs in the church only.I agree completely.

Now, having said that: you want to bet that it will be the pro "gay marriage" crowd that's gonna squeal the loudest about that one? "How can you codify discrimination and bigotry, you homophobes!"

Mr. Laz

07-06-2006, 05:27 PM

I agree completely.

Now, having said that: you want to bet that it will be the pro "gay marriage" crowd that's gonna squeal the loudest about that one? "How can you codify discrimination and bigotry, you homophobes!"
actually i think the religious right will scream just as loud.

"allowing civil unions for gays is a SIN ... a SIN against GOD!!!!"

BIG_DADDY

07-06-2006, 05:37 PM

The gays got cornholed again. :cuss:

ct

07-07-2006, 08:50 AM

I'm surprised a bit by the electorate. Not by the judiciary.

What I'm really surprised about is that there is such resistance to the simple concept of "civil unions" between same sex couples. It's non-sensical to me. As long as being married gets you a package of rights under the law, then I don't see why a simple civil procedure shouldn't get any two people the same package of rights.

i think government should stay out of the fuggin marriage business all together.

all should be Unions and all should be allowed.

marriage is a religious thing and belongs in the church only.

Agree on both counts.

Amnorix

07-07-2006, 10:31 AM

What are these bundle of rights you refer to? Is it impossible to write private contracts that perform the same function?

Nope, very possible. And many do. At what? 5x the cost of getting a simple marriage license? Maybe 10x? Plus you have to actually DO it, which many people avoid.

How many people here are under 50 and yet have no will or other legal documents relating to their death or incapacitation? I'll bet many. For similar reasons.

Chief Faithful

07-07-2006, 10:36 AM

i think government should stay out of the fuggin marriage business all together.

all should be Unions and all should be allowed.

marriage is a religious thing and belongs in the church only.

In Georgia the voters overwhelmingly passed a State Constitutional Amendment limiting marriage to one man and one woman and also prohibited civil unions. This week the Amendment passed the Judicial test.

I think people have become so sick of having the whole gay agenda pushed down their throats as a civil liberty issue that the backlash is surprisingly strong. I don't believe people are so much against civil unions as much as they want this whole issue snuffed out.

Initial resistance to Gay marriage may have started from within the Christian community, but I feel it has grown into an solid majority. It is not just Chrisitians supporting the ban against Gay marriage.

Baby Lee

07-07-2006, 10:42 AM

What I'm really surprised about is that there is such resistance to the simple concept of "civil unions" between same sex couples. It's non-sensical to me. As long as being married gets you a package of rights under the law, then I don't see why a simple civil procedure shouldn't get any two people the same package of rights.
I'm still curious about the question[s] I've posed numerous times.
Do the two people need to have anything in common? Need they have met? Need they live in the same house? City? Country? Need they have any indication of romantic attachment whatsoever? Need it only be two?
Should some kind soul have the right to form a civil union with an illegal alien, and have that union impervious to attack? Should that same soul have the same right to form a civil union with an entire village of illegals?
Should you have the opportunity at Freshman orientation to form a civil union with your dorm mate?
Could a village form a commune and all mutually unionize all citizens?

If we're gonna change the hueristic of marriage/'package of rights,' we need a good deal more analysis that 'there shouldn't be a restriction.'

Cochise

07-07-2006, 10:54 AM

I'm still curious about the question[s] I've posed numerous times.
Do the two people need to have anything in common? Need they have met? Need they live in the same house? City? Country? Need they have any indication of romantic attachment whatsoever? Need it only be two?
Should some kind soul have the right to form a civil union with an illegal alien, and have that union impervious to attack? Should that same soul have the same right to form a civil union with an entire village of illegals?
Should you have the opportunity at Freshman orientation to form a civil union with your dorm mate?
Could a village form a commune and all mutually unionize all citizens?

If we're gonna change the hueristic of marriage/'package of rights,' we need a good deal more analysis that 'there shouldn't be a restriction.'

I wonder how the tax system would be affected when there are 0 people in America filing single anymore.

Or how corporations would feel when they are covering every employee's civil union partner with their benefits - maybe just people the employee sold the rights to their union to in a classified ad.

Hell, I would put my civil union up for sale. What do people normally pay for health insurance if they have to buy it themselves? I could just charge someone $100 a month to be my civil union person. My ad would be in the classifieds the first day it was available. Free money!

Mr. Kotter

07-10-2006, 02:41 PM

Another gayrights setback....

Referendum to ban gay marriages is legal, and now will go before the state legislature in Massachusettes....needing only 25% voting to refer it to the people, in consecutive sessions of the Legislature....

http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/07/10/samesex.marriage.ap/index.htm

Massachusetts court OKs same-sex marriage referendum

State was first to legalize same-sex marriage

BOSTON (AP) -- The same court that made Massachusetts the first state to legalize same-sex marriage ruled Monday that a proposed constitutional amendment to ban future same-sex marriages can be placed on the ballot, if approved by the Legislature.
The ruling was the result of a lawsuit brought by gay-rights supporters who argued that Attorney General Tom Reilly was wrong to approve the question, saying that the state constitution bars any citizen-initiated amendment that seeks to reverse a judicial ruling.
In a unanimous decision, the Supreme Judicial Court said the constitution does not bar citizen initiatives from making prospective changes to the constitution, even if that effectively overrules the effect of a prior court decision, because that change would not be a reversal.
The state Legislature is expected to take up the question Wednesday during a constitutional convention.
Citizen-initiated ballot questions must be certified by the attorney general and then approved by two consecutive legislative sessions. Before the marriage question could be placed on the 2008 ballot, supporters would need to win the votes of 50 lawmakers -- 25 percent of the Legislature -- in two consecutive sessions.
Lee Swislow, executive director of Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders, said she was disappointed but knew it would be an uphill battle. She said the fight is not over.
"So now obviously the focus is going to turn to the Legislature, which has a chance on Wednesday during the constitutional convention to do the right thing and defeat this amendment," said Swislow, whose organization filed the lawsuit in January.
With a landmark 2003 ruling, the state's highest court cleared the way for same-sex marriages to begin in Massachusetts in May 2004. More than 7,000 gay couples have married since.
Copyright 2006 The Associated Press (http://www.cnn.com/interactive_legal.html#AP). All rights reserved.This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.

l

FringeNC

07-10-2006, 03:06 PM

Another gayrights setback....

Referendum to ban gay marriages is legal, and now will go before the state legislature in Massachusettes....needing only 25% voting to refer it to the people, in consecutive sessions of the Legislature....

http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/07/10/samesex.marriage.ap/index.htm

Massachusetts court OKs same-sex marriage referendum

State was first to legalize same-sex marriage

BOSTON (AP) -- The same court that made Massachusetts the first state to legalize same-sex marriage ruled Monday that a proposed constitutional amendment to ban future same-sex marriages can be placed on the ballot, if approved by the Legislature.
The ruling was the result of a lawsuit brought by gay-rights supporters who argued that Attorney General Tom Reilly was wrong to approve the question, saying that the state constitution bars any citizen-initiated amendment that seeks to reverse a judicial ruling.
In a unanimous decision, the Supreme Judicial Court said the constitution does not bar citizen initiatives from making prospective changes to the constitution, even if that effectively overrules the effect of a prior court decision, because that change would not be a reversal.
The state Legislature is expected to take up the question Wednesday during a constitutional convention.
Citizen-initiated ballot questions must be certified by the attorney general and then approved by two consecutive legislative sessions. Before the marriage question could be placed on the 2008 ballot, supporters would need to win the votes of 50 lawmakers -- 25 percent of the Legislature -- in two consecutive sessions.
Lee Swislow, executive director of Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders, said she was disappointed but knew it would be an uphill battle. She said the fight is not over.
"So now obviously the focus is going to turn to the Legislature, which has a chance on Wednesday during the constitutional convention to do the right thing and defeat this amendment," said Swislow, whose organization filed the lawsuit in January.
With a landmark 2003 ruling, the state's highest court cleared the way for same-sex marriages to begin in Massachusetts in May 2004. More than 7,000 gay couples have married since.
Copyright 2006 The Associated Press (http://www.cnn.com/interactive_legal.html#AP). All rights reserved.This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.

l

I assume that if it gets on the ballot, it would take some sort of super-majority to be enacted?

Mr. Kotter

07-10-2006, 03:07 PM

I assume that if it gets on the ballot, it would take some sort of super-majority to be enacted?

Depends if it's a law, or amending the state constitution but...

I don't think so. Simple majority of registered voters, IIRC.

FringeNC

07-10-2006, 03:20 PM

Depends if it's a law, or amending the state constitution but...

I don't think so. Simple majority of registered voters, IIRC.

Allowing a change to the state constitution without requiring a supermajority seems to defeat the whole purpose of a constitution in the first place.

Mr. Kotter

07-10-2006, 03:39 PM

Allowing a change to the state constitution without requiring a supermajority seems to defeat the whole purpose of a constitution in the first place.

If it's an amendment, I'm sure you are right. I just can't recall whether the proposal is a law....or a constitutional amendment. I'll dig later, if I have to...